OT: What's next, a good clubbing for J walking?
Ahh, the joys of living in a police state with good God fearing supreme court assholes. Wake up people,
they'll be coming for you too.
Court Allows Arrest for Minor Violations
By DAVID STOUT
ASHINGTON, April 24 — In a
decision that could affect drivers and
police agencies across the country, the
Supreme Court ruled today that the police
can handcuff and arrest people even for minor
offenses, like failure to use seat belts, which
are normally punished by fines.
The Court ruled, 5 to 4, against a Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed and
taken to jail because she and her two small children were not buckled up in their
pickup truck. The justices rejected her claim that her Fourth Amendment rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.
The case, Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408, had its origins when Gail Atwater was
driving her 6-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son home from soccer practice
through the streets of Lago Vista, Tex., in March 1997. Bart Turek, a Lago Vista
police officer, noticed that no one in the vehicle was using a seat belt, so he pulled
the truck over.
Mrs. Atwater did not have her driver's license or insurance documentation, and she
told the officer that her purse had been stolen the day before. The officer replied that
he had "heard that story two hundred times," according to court documents.
Thus began a nightmare for Mrs. Atwater, whose children began crying as their
mother was cuffed. A friend learned what was happening and arrived to take care of
the children as Mrs. Atwater was placed in a squad car and driven to the police
station for booking. She was put in a jail cell for about an hour, then released on
$310 bond. Ultimately, she pleaded no contest to the seatbelt charges and was fined
$50.
Mrs. Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city, its police chief and
Officer Turek, arguing that her constitutional rights had been violated. Arresting Mrs.
Atwater, rather than simply giving her a ticket, was inherently unreasonable in the
absence of a factor like breach of peace or a likelihood that Mrs. Atwater might
flee, the plaintiffs argued.
A Federal District court in Austin dismissed the case. A three-judge panel of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, reinstated it.
But the entire Fifth Circuit voted, 11 to 5, to dismiss the case. It was argued before
the Supreme Court last Dec. 4.
"The arrest and booking were inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so
extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice David H. Souter
concluded for the majority. He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
But while finding that the officer's actions were not unconstitutional, the majority did
not say that they were right, or that police officers ought to emulate Officer Turek.
Quite the contrary, in fact.
Mrs. Atwater was "a known and established resident of Lago Vista with no place to
hide and no incentive to flee," Justice Souter wrote, "and common sense says she
would almost certainly have buckled up as a condition of driving off with a citation.
In her case, the physical incidents of arrest were merely gratuitous humiliations
imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment."
Justice Souter expressed doubt that episodes like Mrs. Atwater's are widespread.
They are probably rare, he said, because of "the good sense (and, failing that, the
political accountability) of most local lawmakers and law-enforcement officials."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "Giving police officers constitutional
carte blanche to effect an arrest whenever there is probable cause to believe a
fine-only misdemeanor has been committed is irreconcilable with the Fourth
Amendment's command that seizures be reasonable," Justice O'Connor wrote.
(The texts of the ruling and dissent can be read on the Supreme Court's website:
www.supremecourtus.gov.)
Justice O'Connor said that giving Mrs. Atwater a ticket "would have taught Atwater
to ensure that her children were buckled up in the future. It also would have taught
the children an important lesson in accepting responsibility and obeying the law."
Quoting from a lower-court finding, Justice O'Connor said, "Arresting Atwater,
though, taught the children an entirely different lesson: that `the bad person could just
as easily be the policeman as it could be the most horrible person they could
imagine."' |
